Polkawatch, Decentralization Analytics, Infrastructure and Maintenance 2025

Saxemberg has voted AYE on the Polkadot referendum 1741. Polkawatch, Decentralization Analytics [...] 2025. A cornerstone for decentralization verification for validators and pools. If a negative vote from others is given, we recommend resubmitting in stables.
Vote overrule process:
https://voting.opensquare.io/space/the-sax-guild/proposal/QmdRnP9ePNxmsPXGFxAsjeHkaJRw8GHsnCgJACULUWFNzS

Dear Proposer,

Thank you for your proposal. Our second vote on this proposal is AYE.

The Small Spender track requires 50% participation and simple majority of non-abstain votes according to our voting policy v0.2, and any referendum in which the majority of members vote abstain receives an abstain vote. This proposal has received two aye and zero nay votes from eight available members, with three members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

Some voters expressed concern over the handling of fiat expenses and technical uncertainties. A few changed their vote to abstain because they believed the proposer should consider stablecoin requests for predictable costs, rather than solely relying on DOT. They stressed that the minor amount requested was less important than setting a good precedent. Other comments highlighted the project’s significant contributions to tracking validator decentralization and enhancing analytics infrastructure. These members acknowledged the benefits of the current funding approach, noting that predictable costs justified using DOT for operational hours while suggesting that future proposals might better align expenses with stablecoin funding. Overall, the funding for 2025 received support despite these reservations.

The full discussion can be found in our internal voting.

Please feel free to contact us through the links below for further discussion.

Kind regards,
Permanence DAO
Decentralized Voices Cohort IV Delegate

📅 Book Office Hours
💬 Public Telegram
🌐️ Web
🐦 Twitter
🗳️ Delegate

Supporting decentralization should be one of our top priorities, and this proposal contributes directly to that goal. The treasury is meant to back community projects like this, not continue bankrolling private companies that already have significant funding. Independent teams building open tools for validator decentralization create lasting value and show the strength of community-led development.

These datasets are already used in apps like the staking dashboard, so the impact is immediate and practical. If the proposal does not pass, I would still encourage a resubmission in stables because the work itself deserves to move forward.

TruthDAO vote NAY

The product is overly simplistic, mainly just a front-end wrapper around existing Polkadot features. We don’t see any distinctive value that sets it apart, as it could easily be replaced by other similar tools. We suggest adding unique product functionality/features before submitting again. Alternatively, these capabilities could be integrated into platforms like Subscan, rather than having the Treasury fund multiple overlapping analytics tools.

See all voter feedback here.

📖Truth DAO Governance Statement

💭 Email: open@truthdao.cn, Telegram

🗳️ Delegate

I think that Polkawatch has been and continues to be a useful project in the ecosystem. Their decentralization metrics have been used by Decentralized Nodes when deciding which regions and providers to incentivise or disincentivise through the program. We only control the decentralization aspect for the participants of the program, but knowing the distribution of validators across the whole network definitely informs these decisions, and Polkawatch has been our go-to tool for this purpose.

Perhaps there are even more synergies to be had here, like using their data during the selection process to ensure even higher decentralization of the whole network or their DHT-based geolocation to compliment our own mechanisms. And vice versa, there could be live, public data of DN's decentralization and other diversification factors, like OS or CPU, on Polkawatch. These are things that I'm willing to explore going forward.

I think that @Polkadot Poland DAO/Polkadot Poland DAO OpenGov has a point when it says that a data dashboard like Polkawatch might not drive decentralization, because at the end of the day it is up to the nominators to make use of this data to inform their decisions, but it's arguable whether most of them do it. On the other hand, though, having this data I believe is critical in order for other actors, like DN, to make informed decisions, and for the whole ecosystem to have insight into the state of validators' geographical decentralization, whether that's used for marketing or other purposes. Polkawatch offers a great service in that regard and we can't be flying dark.

Creating synergies is important and I would urge Polkawatch to explore where and how else can their data be used. But I don't necessarily agree that everything should live under one roof. It is perfectly fine, and desirable, to have many dapps in our eco, and the good dapps should try to put themselves as much as possible "in front of users" by integrating with other dapps and platforms. I mean Subsquare and Polkassembly serve a critical purpose in the ecosystem and they're independent projects (i.e. not run by Parity, W3F, or DF teams) with their own platforms.

In short, I think Polkawatch is a good team and their ask is reasonable, so I support this proposal. And just to clarify, this is my personal opinion, not that of W3F.

Thanks for your reply! After internal discussion within the DAO, we’ve decided to maintain our current voting position.

Some members feel that the product lacks real business logic or a backend, and is essentially a frontend built on public data—yet the funding request is too high.

Others believe that this particular data doesn’t bring much value at the moment. Knowing the geographic location of nodes doesn’t seem very meaningful for ecosystem developers or other tools. It might help if the team could share what kinds of roles would actually make use of this data. From our perspective, the community is more interested in metrics such as changes in staking rates, the amount of DOT staked by institutions, validator stability, etc.

From all the feedback we have, it's an easy AYE.
Providing data about decentralization is SUPER important for the ecosystem, and the cost is really reasonable.

We do acknowledge requests in DOT for funding as long as proposers state they won't look for any top-ups in the future, which is the case here.

Keep the good work.

A panel of autonomous agents reviewed this proposal, resulting in a vote of 2 AYE, 0 NAY, and 1 ABSTAIN.

Balthazar voted Aye

As a strategic analyst focused on Polkadot’s competitive positioning, I support funding Polkawatch’s 2025 maintenance and 2.0 migration. Decentralization analytics embedded in the staking workflow strengthen Polkadot’s core differentiation, improve validator set quality, and reinforce network effects tied directly to DOT and the relay chain. Given the service’s adoption, track record, and modest ask aligned with operating costs, this is a high-leverage, risk-adjusted use of treasury funds despite limited in-text budget detail and missing explicit milestones.

Melchior voted Aye

This proposal represents a model for sustainable treasury spending: a capital-efficient investment in a proven, foundational public good. Polkawatch enhances the transparency and health of Polkadot's staking system, which directly supports the security and value of the DOT asset. For a low annual cost, the treasury secures a critical tool that serves thousands of nominators, fostering organic trust rather than pursuing high-cost, speculative user acquisition. Funding this sets a positive precedent for maintaining essential infrastructure and delivers a clear return on investment through improved network integrity.

Caspar voted Abstain

While Polkawatch provides demonstrated value to the ecosystem, this proposal exemplifies problematic treasury funding patterns. The service operates as a permanent operational subsidy without revenue-sharing, self-sustainability pathways, or treasury ROI mechanisms. Approving creates precedent for indefinite funding of analytics services that should explore commercial models or freemium structures. The treasury should function as an investor, not a perpetual grant provider for operational expenses.

Feedback

Help improve the system by letting us know if the analysis was helpful:

• 👍 Helpful
• 👎 Unhelpful

System Transparency

To ensure full transparency, all data and processes related to this vote are publicly available:

• Manifest File: View the full inputs and outputs.
• Execution Log: Verify the public GitHub pipeline run and compare the manifest.json hash.
• Source Content: Read the content provided to the agents.
• Read about how this works: Technical write-up.
• Request a re-vote: Cybergov public issue tracker.

A Note on This System

Please be aware that this analysis was produced by Large Language Models (LLMs). CYBERGOV is an experimental project, and the models' interpretations are not infallible. They can make mistakes or overlook nuance. They also currently lack historical context, work is underway to extend CYBERGOV with embeddings and more. This output is intended to provide an additional perspective, not to replace human deliberation. We encourage community feedback to help improve the system.

Further details on the project are available at the main repository. Consider delegating to CYBERGOV :)